Go to Post And then I learned how to use the lathe...long story short, I ditched my plans to become a music major and became an engineering student. - Karibou [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #31   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 11:51
AllenGregoryIV's Avatar
AllenGregoryIV AllenGregoryIV is online now
Engineering Coach
AKA: Allen "JAG" Gregory
FRC #3847 (Spectrum)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,563
AllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to AllenGregoryIV
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankJ View Post
What is not well defined is exactly what is an "re-inspection" & how it gets documented. T8 speaks to modification not repairs. Just when a repair becomes a modification is a judgement call not all defined by the rules. If you expect robots to be reinspected after every repair, then the process is fundamentally flawed & you can't fault teams for not following it a 100%. You are also going to need a lot more inspectors. The other Frank says the process is going to get some attention. I am expecting positive changes.

Removing a mechanism present during the original inspection does not trigger a need for re inspection per T8. Adding the ballast to compensate would require reinspection. As a side note reinstalling the mechanism if the ballast + mechanism exceeded the allowed robot weight would probably be against the rules.
The current rule set is incomplete, if any team were to follow it to the letter they would need to be reinspected just prior to every match. Currently having wheels wear down at all, which happens in every match, would need to be reinspected or having your robot scratched during a match those are modifications that happen after inspection. T8 only refers to MECHANISMS being removed/added/reconfigured not to individual parts being modified.

We trust teams to follow the rules and to compete in good faith. That is what the last portion of the inspection sheet is for, where we have a student and mentor sign the form. I truly hope what ever this change is that we remember that everyone involved in this program chooses to put in a ton of time to help students be successful and for that we should trust them to make good decisions. No matter how detailed the inspections and re-inspections, I'm sure that if any team wanted to cheat they could easily do it. Bag and Tag is all honor system after all. Yes major changes need to be reinspected because it's good to have an outside pair of eyes look at your robot and check that everything is still in compliance. A piece of tape here or a zip tie their rarely make a difference to any matches or to the overall safety of an event.

When I inspect a robot, I'm not looking for teams that cheated, I'm looking to help teams make their robot safe and in compliance with the rules. I have never assumed a team that is not in compliance with the rules ever did so deliberately to gain advantage and if I ever start thinking that way, I would strongly reconsider what we're all doing here.
__________________

Team 647 | Cyber Wolf Corps | Alumni | 2003-2006 | Shoemaker HS
Team 2587 | DiscoBots | Mentor | 2008-2011 | Rice University / Houston Food Bank
Team 3847 | Spectrum | Coach | 2012-20... | St Agnes Academy
LRI | Alamo Regional | 2014-20...
"Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #32   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 11:58
Jon Stratis's Avatar
Jon Stratis Jon Stratis is offline
Mentor, LRI, MN RPC
FRC #2177 (The Robettes)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,827
Jon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag View Post
I missed it? What exactly was the issue with the one robot? Were they out of compliance with robot construction rules, or overweight or something?
Here's the team's description of what happened: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&postcount=124

In short... They took off part of their robot and replaced it with 2 FRC batteries to act as ballast. They asked an inspector before they made the modification, and after it was done got reweighed and the inspector said it was all good.

They then competed like that in two matches, the opposing alliance challenged it based on their understanding from the rules that having multiple batteries on the robot was illegal, and those involved in the decision (the head ref, FTA, and LRI) were not aware of and had no way to show that the team had passed reinspection - from their point of view, the team competed with an illegal robot, and as a result the alliance was disqualified from the two matches they won, and lost their chance to compete in the semifinals.

Read through the thread linked for more information, there are a few posts from the teams involved on both sides,with both alliances unhappy with the eventual outcome.
__________________
2007 - Present: Mentor, 2177 The Robettes
LRI: North Star 2012-2016; Lake Superior 2013-2014; MN State Tournament 2013-2014, 2016; Galileo 2016; Iowa 2017
2015: North Star Regional Volunteer of the Year
2016: Lake Superior WFFA
Reply With Quote
  #33   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 12:12
magnets's Avatar
magnets magnets is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 748
magnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Here's my interpretation of the rule.

"If a ROBOT is modified after it has passed Inspection, other than modifications described in T8, that ROBOT must be re-Inspected. "

T8 "At the time of Inspection, the ROBOT must be presented with all MECHANISMS (including all COMPONENTS of each MECHANISM), configurations, and decorations that will be used on the ROBOT during the entire competition event. It is acceptable, however, for a ROBOT to play MATCHES with a subset of the MECHANISMS that were present during Inspection. Only MECHANISMS that were present during the Inspection may be added, removed or reconfigured between MATCHES. If MECHANISMS are changed between MATCHES, the reconfigured ROBOT must still meet all Inspection criteria."

So, here's a few questions. Does wear and tear on bearings, belts, the stretching of chain, etc count as modification? What about tightening a loose fastener? Making a change to software? Swapping the battery? I sincerely doubt there is a winning alliance anywhere who didn't tighten something or adjust something on their robot between matches. Does that mean that everybody is disqualified? I watched a kid from 118 bend in/adjust the flappy arms on the side of their robot. They did not get reinspected, and no inspector signed a reinspection form. Should they be disqualified too?

(I'm not trying to pick on 118, but it was just an example I remember watching. I'm sure every team has done some last minute repairs on their bot during finals)
Reply With Quote
  #34   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 12:33
FrankJ's Avatar
FrankJ FrankJ is offline
Robot Mentor
FRC #2974 (WALT)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Marietta GA
Posts: 1,945
FrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV View Post
The current rule set is incomplete, if any team were to follow it to the letter they would need to be reinspected just prior to every match. Currently having wheels wear down at all, which happens in every match, would need to be reinspected or having your robot scratched during a match those are modifications that happen after inspection. T8 only refers to MECHANISMS being removed/added/reconfigured not to individual parts being modified.
snip
You are right. T10 is the rule addressing modification. I guess the question is when is a repair a modification? What about software that affects appendages? Anyway going with your definition we should scratch pretty much all the teams that qualified for worlds with the robot? (insert friendly sarcasm smiley here) If you are calling every change a modification, I guess that would include bent frames & damage from the competition. The rabbit hole gets deep fast.

The rules should be read with this in mind.
Quote:
When reading these rules, please use
technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs
over the precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes. Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule.
Even so the process needs to be better defined so teams know what qualifies as an re-inspection & when is it really required.
Reply With Quote
  #35   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 12:40
Jon Stratis's Avatar
Jon Stratis Jon Stratis is offline
Mentor, LRI, MN RPC
FRC #2177 (The Robettes)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,827
Jon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Magnets -
Look at it from the perspective of the Robot Rules - if whatever is being done possibly impacts a Robot Rule (from an inspectors perspective), then you need a reinspection. This includes removing item's/material (we need to make sure the removal doesn't create/expose a sharp edge, leave an exposed wire touching the frame, etc), adding items or material (similar concerns as removal, including other concerns like the starting configuration), or performing adjustments to existing items on the robot that have the potential to create an issue (starting configuration, height, safety).

So generally speaking, tightening a bolt that has worked its way loose isn't going to be a problem, so long as tightening it does not alter the configuration the robot was inspected in (for example, I can envision a robot design where a bolt can be adjusted to move a piece in or out to alter the configuration, which may expose sharp edges or affect the starting configuration... that would need a reinspection).

It is impossible to create a list of what actions do/do not require a reinspection. We trust teams to act in good faith and to generally not make changes at an event that would cause an issue. However, stuff happens, and that's why I always try to have inspectors in high-profile places like queueing and watching the field to help ensure we catch everything as it happens.
__________________
2007 - Present: Mentor, 2177 The Robettes
LRI: North Star 2012-2016; Lake Superior 2013-2014; MN State Tournament 2013-2014, 2016; Galileo 2016; Iowa 2017
2015: North Star Regional Volunteer of the Year
2016: Lake Superior WFFA
Reply With Quote
  #36   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 12:46
AllenGregoryIV's Avatar
AllenGregoryIV AllenGregoryIV is online now
Engineering Coach
AKA: Allen "JAG" Gregory
FRC #3847 (Spectrum)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,563
AllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to AllenGregoryIV
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankJ View Post
You are right. T10 is the rule addressing modification. I guess the question is when is a repair a modification? What about software that affects appendages? Anyway going with your definition we should scratch pretty much all the teams that qualified for worlds with the robot? (insert friendly sarcasm smiley here) If you are calling every change a modification, I guess that would include bent frames & damage from the competition. The rabbit hole gets deep fast.

The rules should be read with this in mind.


Even so the process needs to be better defined so teams know what qualifies as an re-inspection & when is it really required.
Just to be clear, we're on the same side of this issue. I would never ever want that to be the way the rules are enforced and it's not the way I teach my team to follow them. I'm just saying it's a very slippery slope if we were to start enforcing re-inspection after every "modification".

The pre-elimination weight check is a great way to ensure safety and keep everyone one on an equal playing field, it gives inspectors a chance to completely look over the robot again.

The rule set should make it clear that we (the entire organization that makes up FIRST) trusts teams to do the right thing but at any point an inspector can reinspect a robot. Large changes should go through re-inspection but the rule set should allow repairs and minor legal modifications. This is another one of those times where the rules being enforced aren't the ones that are in the rule book.
__________________

Team 647 | Cyber Wolf Corps | Alumni | 2003-2006 | Shoemaker HS
Team 2587 | DiscoBots | Mentor | 2008-2011 | Rice University / Houston Food Bank
Team 3847 | Spectrum | Coach | 2012-20... | St Agnes Academy
LRI | Alamo Regional | 2014-20...
"Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #37   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 12:49
magnets's Avatar
magnets magnets is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 748
magnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond reputemagnets has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
Magnets -
Look at it from the perspective of the Robot Rules - if whatever is being done possibly impacts a Robot Rule (from an inspectors perspective), then you need a reinspection. This includes removing item's/material (we need to make sure the removal doesn't create/expose a sharp edge, leave an exposed wire touching the frame, etc), adding items or material (similar concerns as removal, including other concerns like the starting configuration), or performing adjustments to existing items on the robot that have the potential to create an issue (starting configuration, height, safety).

So generally speaking, tightening a bolt that has worked its way loose isn't going to be a problem, so long as tightening it does not alter the configuration the robot was inspected in (for example, I can envision a robot design where a bolt can be adjusted to move a piece in or out to alter the configuration, which may expose sharp edges or affect the starting configuration... that would need a reinspection).

It is impossible to create a list of what actions do/do not require a reinspection. We trust teams to act in good faith and to generally not make changes at an event that would cause an issue. However, stuff happens, and that's why I always try to have inspectors in high-profile places like queueing and watching the field to help ensure we catch everything as it happens.
I agree with you, that the reinspection process can (and should) be sort of a subjective thing, but with FIRST's recent call it seems like they like following the rules to the letter. Teams have common sense, and should reinspect if the think their modification could possible be deemed unsafe or illegal. If they're just tightening a bolt or replacing a bearing, then probably not, as long as it's not a safety issue.
Reply With Quote
  #38   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 12:59
Chris is me's Avatar
Chris is me Chris is me is online now
no bag, vex only, final destination
AKA: Pinecone
FRC #0228 (GUS Robotics); FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 7,768
Chris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Chris is me
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Here's a dumb idea. What if there was one or two inspectors in queueing, asking teams what repairs or modifications they did? It would take for the most part 15 seconds per team. No big change would go unnoticed. No confusion over whether or not a team was reviewed by an inspector. No worrying about if you have to fill out paperwork for a tread change - just tell the queueing inspector and if you need to do something (paperwork, weight) they'll let you know.

Inspectors already hang around during the day anyway. With 10 inspectors for an event each would only need to do 2 hours a day tops. Maybe this is a lot to ask, but it's better than the current system, where a team can apparently go from being told that they don't have to do anything else and they're "good to go" to being disqualified.
__________________
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-?)
--2016 Waterbury SFs (with 3314, 3719), RIDE #2 Seed / Winners (with 1058, 6153), Carver QFs (with 503, 359, 4607)
Mentor / Consultant Person: 2170 (2017-?)
.
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-2015)
-- 2015 TVR Motorola Quality, FLR GM Industrial Design -- 2014 FLR Motorola Quality / SFs (with 341, 4930)
-- 2013 BAE Motorola Quality, WPI Regional #1 Seed / Delphi Excellence in Engineering / Finalists (with 20, 3182)
-- 2012 BAE Imagery / Finalists (with 1519, 885), CT Xerox Creativity / SFs (with 2168, 118)
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 MN 10K Lakes Regional Winners (with 2826, 2470)
2791 Build Season Photo Gallery - Look here for mechanism photos My Robotics Blog (Updated April 11 2014)
Reply With Quote
  #39   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 13:07
AllenGregoryIV's Avatar
AllenGregoryIV AllenGregoryIV is online now
Engineering Coach
AKA: Allen "JAG" Gregory
FRC #3847 (Spectrum)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,563
AllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to AllenGregoryIV
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
Here's a dumb idea. What if there was one or two inspectors in queueing, asking teams what repairs or modifications they did? It would take for the most part 15 seconds per team. No big change would go unnoticed. No confusion over whether or not a team was reviewed by an inspector. No worrying about if you have to fill out paperwork for a tread change - just tell the queueing inspector and if you need to do something (paperwork, weight) they'll let you know.

Inspectors already hang around during the day anyway. With 10 inspectors for an event each would only need to do 2 hours a day tops. Maybe this is a lot to ask, but it's better than the current system, where a team can apparently go from being told that they don't have to do anything else and they're "good to go" to being disqualified.
I think this is the system that Jon has in place which I think is a good idea. However this and all inspections really assume, perfect inspectors. I can't count the number of times teams go through multiple events with things that seem blatantly illegal to me when I inspect them later in the season. I think this will catch more issues but I think we need to make it a priority that teams be allowed to play in matches for items that don't give them advantage. Holding teams out of a match for small issues that aren't fully with in the rules, that are caught in queue, doesn't benefit anyone.
__________________

Team 647 | Cyber Wolf Corps | Alumni | 2003-2006 | Shoemaker HS
Team 2587 | DiscoBots | Mentor | 2008-2011 | Rice University / Houston Food Bank
Team 3847 | Spectrum | Coach | 2012-20... | St Agnes Academy
LRI | Alamo Regional | 2014-20...
"Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #40   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 14:14
Jon Stratis's Avatar
Jon Stratis Jon Stratis is offline
Mentor, LRI, MN RPC
FRC #2177 (The Robettes)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,827
Jon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Yes, that's the system I have. 2-3 inspectors at the inspection desk for when a team needs to ask for help/reinspection, 2-3 inspectors in the queue to check on teams as they come through, and the rest watching the field/field exit.

When a team breaks on the field or has other issues (disabled due to frame perimeter or bumpers, cRio or radio reboot, etc), and inspector follows them back to the pit to work with them - this ensures that the repair/fix is not only legal, but it gets inspected immediately. That inspector, since he is already in the pits, then goes to the inspection desk and relieves one of the inspectors there. This prevents an inspector from getting bored sitting at the desk all day (most of the inspectors I work with are pretty active and want to either be working with a team or watching a match, not twiddling their thumbs at the desk). That inspector then goes and relieves one of the guys in the queueing line. That way you don't have the same inspector looking at the robots the whole day - if an inspector misses something once, they're likely to miss it a second time. Changing out the inspectors helps to make sure stuff gets caught. From there, the inspector goes back to the field/field exit and starts the cycle all over again.

It's the best way I can come up with of catching issues, helping teams avoid issues while on the field, ensuring we pro-actively show up to inspect for teams who are likely to be doing something that needs an inspection, and being available for teams who ask for it.

But towards the point of Frank's blog post (and Allen's last post)... even with my method there's room for confusion and misunderstandings. A team could make it through all of that and still compete with something I would find blatantly illegal, and it would be difficult to track it back to the inspector that passed it, and even more difficult to ensure the inspector remembers passing it. Additional documentation can certainly help avoid situations like what happened in Orlando, so long as we don't go overboard and make that documentation a pain that no one wants to deal with. Doing it with the computerized system that was tested in MAR sounds like it could work out very nicely.
__________________
2007 - Present: Mentor, 2177 The Robettes
LRI: North Star 2012-2016; Lake Superior 2013-2014; MN State Tournament 2013-2014, 2016; Galileo 2016; Iowa 2017
2015: North Star Regional Volunteer of the Year
2016: Lake Superior WFFA
Reply With Quote
  #41   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 14:16
AdamHeard's Avatar
AdamHeard AdamHeard is offline
Lead Mentor
FRC #0973 (Greybots)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Atascadero
Posts: 5,525
AdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to AdamHeard
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
But towards the point of Frank's blog post (and Allen's last post)... even with my method there's room for confusion and misunderstandings. A team could make it through all of that and still compete with something I would find blatantly illegal, and it would be difficult to track it back to the inspector that passed it, and even more difficult to ensure the inspector remembers passing it. Additional documentation can certainly help avoid situations like what happened in Orlando, so long as we don't go overboard and make that documentation a pain that no one wants to deal with. Doing it with the computerized system that was tested in MAR sounds like it could work out very nicely.
Hypothetical.

Lets say you, as the LRI, pass a team. Later, they are found to be have been illegal (even though you passed them as such). Does this warrant a red card?
Reply With Quote
  #42   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 14:24
AllenGregoryIV's Avatar
AllenGregoryIV AllenGregoryIV is online now
Engineering Coach
AKA: Allen "JAG" Gregory
FRC #3847 (Spectrum)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,563
AllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond reputeAllenGregoryIV has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to AllenGregoryIV
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard View Post
Hypothetical.

Lets say you, as the LRI, pass a team. Later, they are found to be have been illegal (even though you passed them as such). Does this warrant a red card?
I don't think it can. Everyone is imperfect, including in this case the inspector.
__________________

Team 647 | Cyber Wolf Corps | Alumni | 2003-2006 | Shoemaker HS
Team 2587 | DiscoBots | Mentor | 2008-2011 | Rice University / Houston Food Bank
Team 3847 | Spectrum | Coach | 2012-20... | St Agnes Academy
LRI | Alamo Regional | 2014-20...
"Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #43   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 14:37
FrankJ's Avatar
FrankJ FrankJ is offline
Robot Mentor
FRC #2974 (WALT)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Marietta GA
Posts: 1,945
FrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond reputeFrankJ has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard View Post
Hypothetical.

Lets say you, as the LRI, pass a team. Later, they are found to be have been illegal (even though you passed them as such). Does this warrant a red card?
The grounds for a Red card is T6 which is an uninspected robot.

T7 covers inspected robots not in compliance with the robot rules which does not have a penalty

So for instance a robot with three batteries successfully passes inspection in good faith shouldn't get a red card. When the situation is discovered, they would need to correct the issue & get reinspected before allowed to continue.
Reply With Quote
  #44   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 14:46
Jon Stratis's Avatar
Jon Stratis Jon Stratis is offline
Mentor, LRI, MN RPC
FRC #2177 (The Robettes)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,827
Jon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard View Post
Hypothetical.

Lets say you, as the LRI, pass a team. Later, they are found to be have been illegal (even though you passed them as such). Does this warrant a red card?
It's a difficult situation, to be sure. The rulebook says:

Quote:
At each event, the Lead ROBOT Inspector (LRI) has final authority on the legality of any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT.
(section 5.5.2 of the Tournament Rules)

It also says:
Quote:
The Head Referee has the ultimate authority in the ARENA during the event
(Section 5.5.3 of the Tournament Rules)

Further, the FTA is the official representative of FIRST and the GDC at an event. Those three people, essentially, have all the power in determining how the event goes, and the boundaries between them aren't always clear. That's why it's important that those three people get along and have an understanding

So on to the question... If I personally pass someone in the queueing line and there's something I missed, then it's a bad situation all around. Given the scenario we're dealing with, lets assume that the issue is brought to the Head Ref's attention (either a ref notices something that doesn't look right or a team on the other alliance challenges it). At that point, the Head Ref is well within his rights to take appropriate action - if it's before the match, disabling a robot, if it's after DQing the team (based on his understanding of the Game rules as they pertain to the field). Obviously, this is NOT the preferred outcome!

In my experience, if issues are noticed on the field early in an event, the head ref warns the team and gets a note to me to talk with them. That's why my inspectors are standing at the exit - they're within hailing distance of the refs, and (especially this year) the refs can easily task them with getting something fixed on a robot.

The later we get in an event, the more likely I am to be at the field. Issues have been worked out in the pits, my inspectors know their jobs and are doing them, and I'm free to keep an eye on things around the field. It also makes it very easy for the Head Ref to find me to consult about an inspection question! If the question is directly related to something I said was OK, then I am automatically fighting for the team. At that point, I feel it's not the team's fault and the team shouldn't suffer in their current match because of my mistake - although that's the only match they get a pass in, they have to fix it for all future matches! Depending on the issue, sometimes the head ref agrees, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes it becomes a discussion with myself, the Head Ref, and the FTA to find the most appropriate solution. Regardless, if I know (which is really the key point when it comes to the issue in Orlando) the fault was mine or one of my inspectors, I argue on behalf of the affected team, and try to make sure that the match in question isn't counted against them.

We're all there to make it a great event for every team. That means we have to play by the rules, and treat every team fairly. It can be very difficult to do that when you have to make a decision that will benefit one team while harming another, as almost any field decision does. None of these decisions are made lightly, and each one is handled on a case-by-case basis as the particulars are often important.
__________________
2007 - Present: Mentor, 2177 The Robettes
LRI: North Star 2012-2016; Lake Superior 2013-2014; MN State Tournament 2013-2014, 2016; Galileo 2016; Iowa 2017
2015: North Star Regional Volunteer of the Year
2016: Lake Superior WFFA
Reply With Quote
  #45   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-04-2014, 14:58
AdamHeard's Avatar
AdamHeard AdamHeard is offline
Lead Mentor
FRC #0973 (Greybots)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Atascadero
Posts: 5,525
AdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to AdamHeard
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident

Your response really points out the weakness (and danger) of the rules in this situation.

Any reasonable person from outside would agree, no. A team can't be red-carded because the LRI made a mistake.

The rules need to remove the red card penalty, OR streamline the process and make it more fair/consistent to teams.

Certainly either way the LRI shouldn't be able to accidentally entrap teams into losing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
It's a difficult situation, to be sure. The rulebook says:


(section 5.5.2 of the Tournament Rules)

It also says:

(Section 5.5.3 of the Tournament Rules)

Further, the FTA is the official representative of FIRST and the GDC at an event. Those three people, essentially, have all the power in determining how the event goes, and the boundaries between them aren't always clear. That's why it's important that those three people get along and have an understanding

So on to the question... If I personally pass someone in the queueing line and there's something I missed, then it's a bad situation all around. Given the scenario we're dealing with, lets assume that the issue is brought to the Head Ref's attention (either a ref notices something that doesn't look right or a team on the other alliance challenges it). At that point, the Head Ref is well within his rights to take appropriate action - if it's before the match, disabling a robot, if it's after DQing the team (based on his understanding of the Game rules as they pertain to the field). Obviously, this is NOT the preferred outcome!

In my experience, if issues are noticed on the field early in an event, the head ref warns the team and gets a note to me to talk with them. That's why my inspectors are standing at the exit - they're within hailing distance of the refs, and (especially this year) the refs can easily task them with getting something fixed on a robot.

The later we get in an event, the more likely I am to be at the field. Issues have been worked out in the pits, my inspectors know their jobs and are doing them, and I'm free to keep an eye on things around the field. It also makes it very easy for the Head Ref to find me to consult about an inspection question! If the question is directly related to something I said was OK, then I am automatically fighting for the team. At that point, I feel it's not the team's fault and the team shouldn't suffer in their current match because of my mistake - although that's the only match they get a pass in, they have to fix it for all future matches! Depending on the issue, sometimes the head ref agrees, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes it becomes a discussion with myself, the Head Ref, and the FTA to find the most appropriate solution. Regardless, if I know (which is really the key point when it comes to the issue in Orlando) the fault was mine or one of my inspectors, I argue on behalf of the affected team, and try to make sure that the match in question isn't counted against them.

We're all there to make it a great event for every team. That means we have to play by the rules, and treat every team fairly. It can be very difficult to do that when you have to make a decision that will benefit one team while harming another, as almost any field decision does. None of these decisions are made lightly, and each one is handled on a case-by-case basis as the particulars are often important.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:57.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi